Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Completely and utterly Incorrect A person and/or their credentials isn't science, case closed. The work he presented was not "made up", unless you can prove he made it up. Since natural laws of therodynamics are used, you'd need to find ot where he incorrectly mis-anaylzed. That's one of the things the peer-review process is responsible for... making sure there's no glaring, basic problem with the paper. That's why the lack of one is such a red flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I've read through the thread, and these are the arguments -He's a kook -He invented data -His credentials suck Yeah, thats a way to attempt a refutation, ain't it? Lets ignore the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 That's one of the things the peer-review process is responsible for... making sure there's no glaring, basic problem with the paper. That's why the lack of one is such a red flag. He is attempting to get it Published, so we'll see. This assuming he has made errors (which is likely), but again, its premature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I never said I agreed with it, I said if he is correct. I'm looking for a rebuttal to it. If I see one, I'll post it. But you posted the article as if it had any scientific validity whatsoever. Without it having been peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature, it's no more than the musings of some guy (who may be very smart, or may not be). It may look fancy with a bunch of intelligent-looking equations and still be fraudulent. Or it might have some truth to it or even be completely true (which I highly doubt in this case, obviously). But it hasn't been through a rigorous process to establish it as something more than merely the musings of a man with an agenda yet. And I expect it will never pass through such a rigorous process unscathed, which (in that case) would imply that there's something fundamentally wrong with the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 again, no scientific publisher will take it since it's already been published. Its been published in a Journal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I've read through the thread, and these are the arguments -He's a kook -He invented data -His credentials suck Yeah, thats a way to attempt a refutation, ain't it? Lets ignore the science. How about -The paper hasn't been through the scientific process We're not going to discuss the potential scientific 'validity' of the paper, because 1. the bolded above, 2. none of us is probably qualified, and 3. there are several other red flags that signal this as a kook article (i.e. CO2 causes cooling? Really?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacChump Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Its been published in a Journal? you should post in other forums more often...we could use people like you in PR, especially... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 But you posted the article as if it had any scientific validity whatsoever. Without it having been peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature, it's no more than the musings of some guy (who may be very smart, or may not be). It may look fancy with a bunch of intelligent-looking equations and still be fraudulent. Or it might have some truth to it or even be completely true (which I highly doubt in this case, obviously). But it hasn't been through a rigorous process to establish it as something more than merely the musings of a man with an agenda yet. And I expect it will never pass through such a rigorous process unscathed, which (in that case) would imply that there's something fundamentally wrong with the paper. It might, who knows? I was skeptical from the beginning, because I am a beliver in "AGW" (not to the extent the IPCC/hansen predict, of course), more Minor. But the arguments I'm hearing from you guys make me think more highly of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 you should post in other forums more often...we could use people like you in PR, especially... Whats PR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 It might, who knows? I was skeptical from the beginning, because I am a beliver in "AGW" (not to the extent the IPCC/hansen predict, of course), more Minor. But the arguments I'm hearing from you guys make me think more highly of it I would expect nothing else from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 How about -The paper hasn't been through the scientific process Yes, and that is different that ripping at someones credentials, and is why I am skeptical, and always have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacChump Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Whats PR? Politcial Roundtable...formerly AP at eastern...you've acquitted yourself quite well here...total pwnage...you should post in the politics forum, too...major opportunities for further pwning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I would expect nothing else from you. Hey, its not as bad as defending Jim hansen, since I'm not a denier of AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Politcial Roundtable...formerly AP at eastern...you've acquitted yourself quite well here...totally pwnage...you should post in the politics forum, too...major opportunities for further pwning... What have I been pwned on? The peer review process? yeah... thats crazy. Politics aren't my thing really, don't get the two intertwined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Yes, and that is different that ripping at someones credentials, and is why I am skeptical, and always have been. Credentials fall into the third "reason" I gave. Although they won't make or break the science, and are not technically even related to the science, they can be a red flag in the presence of other indicators that something is amiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Credentials fall into the third "reason" I gave. Although they won't make or break the science, and are not technically even related to the science, they can be a red flag in the presence of other indicators that something is amiss. The Science aspect is what is important. I'd expect we'll be seeing a refutation of this shortly..if it is indeed a Farce, since it was just "published". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Hey, its not as bad as defending Jim hansen, since I'm not a denier of AGW. I thought you were all for trying to be as fair and balanced as possible and sticking to the science. I wasn't "defending Jim Hansen", but was defending integrity in the presentation of scientific predictions and verification. I figured you'd be all for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I thought you were all for trying to be as fair and balanced as possible and sticking to the science. I wasn't "defending Jim Hansen", but was defending integrity in the presentation of scientific predictions and verification. I figured you'd be all for that. I am, but the Predictions have been failing with the slight cooling in the past decade, 14 yrs actually. According to the IPCC, natural factors are minor and will not deter the +0.18C/decade trend due to CO2 forcing. If they were verifing, then I'd be an AGWer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Agreed on all counts, but I think you'd agree that there's some point at which you have to say "this makes no physical sense, and other aspects make the claim seem fishy to begin with (like not being published in a peer reviewed journal, as one of the many examples). This can be pretty readily dismissed." I certainly believe "papers" like this fall under that category. It just doesn't pass the initial "BS" test. I honestly breezed through it and, without clearing cobwebs from my brain and diving into some of the higher math, cannot judge the hypothesis present well enough to "toss it" or not. My point is that to put something out there pretty much naked, as this is, should very well be able to be quickly characterized as unsound or not (via poor reasoning, errors in calculations, etc.) If this paper is of "kook" material.....it would show as such quickly....without the "he is from such and such univeristy" ....or "only one person wrote" ...or "he is just a bio....blah blah blah... Someone that has earned a higher degree, should be at least afforded the curtousy to delve into the paper, irregardless of any ideological leanings or summary conclusions drawn...if it ends up being laughed at afterward, he will suffer consequences based on a stronger argument than the flimsy, irrelevant "he is a 'xxxx'...... argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I honestly breezed through it and, without clearing cobwebs from my brain and diving into some of the higher math, cannot judge the hypothesis present well enough to "toss it" or not. My point is that to put something out there pretty much naked, as this is, should very well be able to be quickly characterized as unsound or not (via poor reasoning, errors in calculations, etc.) If this paper is of "kook" material.....it would show as such quickly....without the "he is from such and such univeristy" ....or "only one person wrote" ...or "he is just a bio....blah blah blah... Someone that has earned a higher degree, should be at least afforded the curtousy to delve into the paper, irregardless of any ideological leanings or summary conclusions drawn...if it ends up being laughed at afterward, he will suffer consequences based on a stronger argument than the flimsy, irrelevant "he is a 'xxxx'...... argument. This^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I am, but the Predictions have been failing with the slight cooling in the past decade, 14 yrs actually. According to the IPCC, natural factors are minor and will not deter the +0.18C/decade trend due to CO2 forcing. If they were verifing, then I'd be an AGWer My problem was with the presentation of the data, as I've already stated. The second graph you posted was at least more fair (though it still had problems). And when I say "fair" I don't mean that it supports one side or the other, or even both equally... I mean that the graphics should illustrate the author's full intent and not take things out of context. Whether or not his predictions from 1988 were "wrong" wasn't what I was arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 the paper has been linked to; it's about 5 pages long. have at it. I remain unconvinced that a biologist studying the immune system has the key to the physics of climate change. Ok, so you're not convinced, just say that and be done with it. I'm not convinced either, but I'm also not unconvinced. I'm looking for the first scientific rebuttal. It doesn't matter what any of us "think". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I honestly breezed through it and, without clearing cobwebs from my brain and diving into some of the higher math, cannot judge the hypothesis present well enough to "toss it" or not. My point is that to put something out there pretty much naked, as this is, should very well be able to be quickly characterized as unsound or not (via poor reasoning, errors in calculations, etc.) If this paper is of "kook" material.....it would show as such quickly....without the "he is from such and such univeristy" ....or "only one person wrote" ...or "he is just a bio....blah blah blah... Someone that has earned a higher degree, should be at least afforded the curtousy to delve into the paper, irregardless of any ideological leanings or summary conclusions drawn...if it ends up being laughed at afterward, he will suffer consequences based on a stronger argument than the flimsy, irrelevant "he is a 'xxxx'...... argument. Nobody is saying it shouldn't be given due process. But without even skimming the article there are enough red flags that I'm comfortable dismissing it as "kooky". I'm comfortable because I think the likelihood that I'll be proven wrong is vanishingly low, but should I be proven wrong in the end and this article (or the general idea presented therein, that CO2 has a net cooling effect in the atmosphere) ends up surviving as a defensible scientific position, I will more than gladly bite my tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Here comes Skier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 do you have any understanding about how to evaluate sources? Bethesda has consistently shown his inability to differentiate between legitimate sources and crackpots. 8 pages already? Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Bethesda has consistently shown his inability to differentiate between legitimate sources and crackpots. 8 pages already? Yikes. What do you define as a crackpot source? This is Crackpot because it goes against the IPCC, right? I'm not saying I agree, however, new science is discovered all the time, that doesn't make it crackpot until we see the scientific rebuttal. I don't believe I have, because I never bought into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 the scientific rebuttal is that no journal will publish it. why can't you understand that basic part of this situation? Are you saying they won't review it, or won't accept it because it "breaks the rules"? If they won't even read it, then no, its not a scientific rebuttal. If they read it and find proof of flaws, then yes, irs a scientific rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Even that is not necessary, its very simple. Look at who Peer reviewed the Paper. If the reviewers are all Pro AGW, risking tenure, with roots in their field, then the aspect of Bias Plays in. Its that simple. This is like saying reviewers of physics journal articles need to have skeptics of gravity as reviewers or else they are biased pro-gravity. Peer reviewers are not and should never be anti-AGW. Anybody that is anti-AGW doesn't have the credentials or understanding to review squat. AGW is a well accepted fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 lol @ Bethesda claiming to know the identities of the anonymous reviewers of papers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Peer reviewers are not and should never be anti-AGW. Anybody that is anti-AGW doesn't have the credentials or understanding to review squat. AGW is a well accepted fact. :lol: This is Hilarious, Sig Worthy... because its not true. In fact, I'm posting this into my Sig....................Submit this statement into Peer Review, it will be Rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.